Elder Holland pulls story due to being false

[MiserereNobis]

There are a lot of faith-promoting stories in Catholicism, usually centered around supernatural apparitions and visitations, especially of Mary. Fortunately, the Catholic Church has a fairly organized structure in dealing with such things (which are termed "private revelations"). Any such story, especially if widely spread, is investigated, with multiple levels of hierarchy asserting whether or not it is something that has cause to be believed. Interestingly enough, even sanctioned private revelation is not required to be believed.

Sometimes the Catholic Church is criticized for being too formal and legalistic, but sometimes such a mindset is helpful, especially when it comes to faith-promoting stories. I suspect as the Mormon church becomes bigger and matures (ha, yes, I can say this since you are only 200 years old and we are 2000 years old  ) there will become more institutional checks to such stories.

As far as this story is concerned, I know there are those who want to attack Scott Lloyd over it. He was simply doing his job as an employee of an LDS owned newspaper in reporting the story told by the apostle. Don't forget that there was a disclaimer that said the newspaper is there to promote the LDS religion. It was not his responsibility to fact check the background story -- he was just supposed to report accurately what the apostle said. Please don't attack him for doing his job.

[Calm]

 

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think that it was Kim B. Clark who reportedly first told the story and evidently he personally knew and served with the man (the ex-Hell's Angel).   I wonder who originally embellished the story?  Too bad this happened, but the retraction is the right thing to do.

ETA:

Here's the quote from the person who heard Clark tell the story:

"The Hell's Angel ended up being in the Stake Presidency (local church leadership) with Kim B. Clark, which is where he learned the story from."

Assuming this Sister Missionary got the details correctly...I wonder if any other of the missionaries there that day reported it so as to compare.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Assuming this Sister Missionary got the details correctly...I wonder if any other of the missionaries there that day reported it so as to compare.

I was just wondering if Clark was the person Elder Holland heard the story from since he stated it was someone who personally knew the family member.  It fits, so maybe?  The first person (we know of) who related it publicly was Clark, but he might not have been the first, of course.  Those were just reported in blogs online.

Edited August 1, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

As far as this story is concerned, I know there are those who want to attack Scott Lloyd over it. He was simply doing his job as an employee of an LDS owned newspaper in reporting the story told by the apostle. Don't forget that there was a disclaimer that said the newspaper is there to promote the LDS religion. It was not his responsibility to fact check the background story -- he was just supposed to report accurately what the apostle said. Please don't attack him for doing his job.

I completely agree.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I was just wondering if Clark was the person Elder Holland heard the story from since he stated it was someone who personally knew the family member.  It fits, so maybe?  The first person (we know of) who related it publicly was Clark, but he might not have been the first, of course.  Those were just reported in blogs online.

It makes sense it happened that way, but we can't be sure.

 Too bad that devotional wasn't one that was recorded.  The following week's was.  Though apparently you need an MTC password as my usual LDS.org one didn't work.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[sjdawg]

5 hours ago, DBMormon said:

i knew the story was too much of a yarn to be true.  Sadly we should never share false faith promoting stories and we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.  this one was a yarn.  And While I am glad that Elder Holland has done what very few inside institutional mormonism have done (admit a miracle story wasn't true).  almost all of our miracle stories in our faith tradition are problematic inspite of being told by official church sources over and over and never being retracted.

We could start with the sweetwater crossing......

then maybe the widdling whistlers........

john taylor's watch........

should we keep going.
 

I saw a post shortly after the story was told by Elder Holland that showed a very similar but with slightly different details (locations, type of dog) had been told previously by 2 or 3 other GA's.  I was skeptical from the beginning but willing to admit that the "essence" of the story was true even if minor details had been changed or forgotten. Apparently that was also too optimistic. 

   

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I saw a post shortly after the story was told by Elder Holland that showed a very similar but with slightly different details (locations, type of dog) had been told previously by 2 or 3 other GA's.  I was skeptical from the beginning but willing to admit that the "essence" of the story was true even if minor details had been changed or forgotten. Apparently that was also too optimistic. 

   

From what I have read, Kim Clark told it once in Nov 2015 at an MTC devotional.  It was reported he had been told by the older brother.  One sister missionary reported it that I could find doing a search on "Kim b Clark" and "hell's angels".  Then apparently Elder Holland has shared the story twice since then.  The most recent was reported in the Des.News.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What's wrong with these stories being disneyfied a bit?

Really?

Maybe future stories should have one of the following qualifiers attached.

• True Story
• Based on a True Story
• Inspired by a True Story
• Story

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What's wrong with these stories being disneyfied a bit?

The point is truth. "Disneyfing" a story distorts the truth. Isn't the truth what we are after? (back off, Mark  ) You are the most fundamental Mormon I know -- I don't mean that pejoratively -- so I'm interested why you dismiss truth so.

Quote

Perhaps they have been given a faith promoting sheen instead of a skeptics microscope.  Isn't that how most of scripture is designed to work?
 

Are faith-promoting stories scripture? Like I said in an earlier post, the Catholic Church has a method to determine if a story/experience has cause for us to believe it.

Quote

Man, I seriously dislike skeptics....especially ones who are so proud of their doubt and disdainful of faith.

I'm not sure how to understand this statement, since faith is supposed to be in things that are true, but not seen. It isn't faith to believe in something that isn't true. The skeptic is right when something is clearly false. It seems this story falls into that category.

Edited August 1, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[cinepro]

With all due respect to the Deseret News, I don't care what they say.  I still believe the story is true.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, DBMormon said:

i knew the story was too much of a yarn to be true.  Sadly we should never share false faith promoting stories and we can do that by never repeating a third hand story or any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.

I have a fair few firsthand stories that I'm reasonably certain you would also identify as 'too much of a yarn to be true'.

[Calm]

Me too.

A recent one that has nothing faithpromoting about it, but is pure fun.  My husband went back east, Boston, New York, one of those places and is walking down the street.  For some reason (I will have to ask him if anyone is interested), he starts talking to a couple on the street.  (That is not unusual) They ask him where he is from (an obvious tourist) and he says the city where we live.  They get a surprised look on their face and ask for the street address.  They are the kids of our neighbors, who were even back there doing family stuff at that time.  Neither my husband nor they were aware they had been heading out there.  Iirc, they had been out there for several weeks.

Then there was the time we are living in Canada and go to Moscow for half a year for a teaching position.  We show up in Church on Sunday and my husband's first crush/almost girlfriend ( in his mind at least) from Orem, Utah is the RS Pres.  That is more likely given Mormons tend to go to church on Sunday though it being Russia and only up to such visitors for 3? years perhaps not....there were four women attending, me, her, a Swiss senior missionary, and a US Embassy woman ten, 15 years our senior.  Still most faithful nonRussian-fluent Mormons in Moscow would go to the International Branch there....yet after 25 years of not knowing where the other was?  nice reunion.  Beautiful woman and wonderful family.  He has good taste.  Certainly it would never have occurred to them back in middle school they would meet 25 years later in a convent converted to a school rented out to be a church on Sundays to Mormons in Moscow where we would walk by getting dirty looks from the nuns trying to reclaim their property and kick the heathens out (which they did eventually).

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

Me, too. Undeniable apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, DBMormon said:

... never repeating ... any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it.

There goes my PhD thesis in history...

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There goes my PhD thesis in history...

"never repeating ... any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it."

I wonder how many of DB's podcasts would have to be deleted if he lived by this rule.

For example, I believe this guest promotes the Michigan Artifacts.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/03/premium-the-michigan-artifacts-with-alex-koritz/

Edited August 1, 2017 by Calm

[Alan]

I admit to being a bit miffed with Elder Holland.

It all sounds a little Paul H Dunn-ish.

[california boy]

I first want to say that I gained a lot of respect for Elder Holland in making this public.  He could have very easily left this out there.  After all, he was telling the story the way he heard it.  

There is also some value in looking back at the previous threads on this issue.  There was some pretty harsh judgement going on against those that expressed skeptical opinions on this story.  Some refused to allow for any opinion that cast doubt on what was being reported. When I expressed my OPINION of the story, Scott went after me like a, well, doberman pincher or maybe a rottweiler. (I can't remember which one.)  I am not the only one that got attacked for expressing an opinion that turned out to be true.  This is what I wrote.

Quote

 

California Boy

I heard the 3 Nephites were there only visible to the missionary and they were holding the mouths shut of the attack dogs.  Is that true?

Another Mormon folklore is born.  No specifics.  No verifiable facts.  But a great story.  God inspires a young man to go on a mission.  God inspires the missionary committee to send him to the mission his lost brother is from.  God inspires the mission president to assign the missionary to the exact area his lost brother lives.  God inspires the missionary to tract the exact street where his lost brother lives. God inspires the brother to be home when the missionaries show up.  God calms the nature of two ferocious attack dogs.  God inspires the missionary to ask the lost brother where he is from.  God inspires the lost brother to mention his parents name.  

Nice to know that God micromanages all of our lives to this extent.  Yet God does not lift a finger when others desperately call out to him for help.  In those times, it is God's will for the life to end or what ever calamity befalls the faithful person who is praying desperately.

Yeah I am a bit cynical on issues like this.  There is a line from a Jonny Lange song.  "I've heard a lot of stories, but my prayers have been ignored."  I have just had way too many stories from church leaders that were manipulated to portray something in a way that slants what actually happened.  Then to find out, it did not really happen that way.  

For those that believe, I tip my hat to you.  It must be an incredible feeling knowing that God watches over every step you make.  

 

And this is the response I got back from Scott

 

Quote

 

Scott Lloyd

You're being more than just cynical. You're being disrespectful at best, if not mocking and sacrilegious. I'm wondering if hope for things is going to visit you with the same wrath he has poured out on Elder Holland for allegedly being hurtful and offensive. 

Juliann a few weeks ago raised a very valid question in a thread about whether believers are being driven away by some of the content on this board. This post by you is, in my mind, a clear example of what she was talking about. 

Edited to add: I see now that not only is hope for things not going to show you the same indignation he did Elder Holland, he has actually applauded you with a rep point. Very telling -- and hypocritical. What happened to "we should strive to be sensitive to as many people as possible" hope for things? 

 

I later apologized in the thread

Quote

 

California Boy

I apologize to you and anyone else who may have been offended by my opinion on the story being discussed.  That was not my intent. 

 

There are some TBM on this board that assume if you say anything about the church that they think is not favorable, they feel the need to go after you personally, rarely addressing the issues that you brought up.  Perhaps this story can be used to address this kind of behavior and make this board just a little more civil.  Leave the personal attacks outside the discussion.  Address what is being said.  Acknowledge that others have a different life experience than you do.  Just a thought.

Now I wonder if Scott is going to apologize for my skeptical post on this story.  Not holding my breath.

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I saw a post shortly after the story was told by Elder Holland that showed a very similar but with slightly different details (locations, type of dog) had been told previously by 2 or 3 other GA's.  I was skeptical from the beginning but willing to admit that the "essence" of the story was true even if minor details had been changed or forgotten. Apparently that was also too optimistic. 

   

It's interesting that the part of the story that is embellished or not true, is the same part where the details kept changing each time it was told.

It does make me curious to know what story the family member originally told.

I am reading that many wonder where Elder Holland's power of discernment was?  Why did many here and elsewhere sense or know something didn't seem right, but he continued telling the story?

I hope the result isn't that some will question his stories in the future.  But I have to believe they will be better researched and fact checked from now on (for all church leaders).

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

"never repeating ... any story we are not absolutely sure occurred as we described it."

I wonder how many of DB's podcasts would have to be deleted if he lived by this rule.

I don't know Calm, but I feel this comment is beneath you. Why attack DBMornon here?  

I agree everyone needs to be careful when repeating stories, but I wouldn't put DB in the same category as when Elder Holland speaks to church members.  Just my opinion.

Edited August 1, 2017 by JulieM

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

It's interesting that the part of the story that is embellished or not true, is the same part where the details kept changing each time it was told.

It does make me curious to know what story the family member originally told.

I am reading that many wonder where Elder Holland's power of discernment was?  Why did many here and elsewhere sense or know something didn't seem right, but he continued telling the story?

I hope the result isn't that some will question his stories in the future.  But I have to believe they will be better researched and fact checked from now on (for all church leaders).

I suspect he has gained some credibility by rescinding the story.  I also suspect he will be more cautious in selecting the stories he tells in the future.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

It's interesting that the part of the story that is embellished or not true, is the same part where the details kept changing each time it was told.

It does make me curious to know what story the family member originally told.

I am reading that many wonder where Elder Holland's power of discernment was?  Why did many here and elsewhere sense or know something didn't seem right, but he continued telling the story?

I hope the result isn't that some will question his stories in the future.  But I have to believe they will be better researched and fact checked from now on (for all church leaders).

The part of the miraculous story that was fabricated was the miracle part

I'm a bit uncomfortable blaming the family for this story because it's as if the default assumes Holland couldn't have made a mistake so therefore it must be the family's fault. Maybe the exaggeration started there, but we can't know for sure. Elder Holland heard the story 2nd hand which means the original source could have been wrong in some elements, the individual that heard, interpreted, and reconveyed the story could have been wrong, or Elder Holland could have been wrong in how he heard, interpreted and retold the story. Or they all could have gotten things wrong. We all get things wrong. We all misremember and mis-tell stories.

But the responsibility ultimately rests on Elder Holland, not the family. The family seems to have done the courageous and ethical thing by bringing the mistakes to Elder Holland's attention even though it may have caused them embarrassment or even shame when people would inevitably blame them for the errors. Elder Holland then did the courageous and ethical thing by admitting the mistake. Whether or not he had much choice about that is in question and doesn't concern me a whole lot, but I'm happy he made a direct statement. I do wish he hadn't called the family into question, though.

I hope that this is a good lesson for those who are tempted to share miraculous faith affirming stories if they don't have 1st hand experience with it. I also hope that the "faithful" won't be so harsh in judging those who are skeptical about such stories. The previous thread irritated me because the faithful were appalled that anyone would even question Elder Holland's story, as if he was infallible. Well, we see how that worked out in this case and I think he will have a responsibility to be very accurate and careful in the future to regain some trust.

ETA-

Quote

Bluebell- You knew that the family was lying?

I hope I'm misunderstanding you. You're not claiming that the family was lying and the source of this whole fiasco, are you?

Edited August 1, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ever looking for fault.

Sad way to spend a life.

And what are you doing when looking at DB?  

I don't see him in that light and I think this thread should not turn into one about him.

As far as the topic of the thread goes, I am happy Elder Holland has stepped forward and done this.  Kudos to him for doing the right thing.

I put this story in the same category as many that are told (I used those told at Education Week as an example in the original thread).  I think that as speakers (who have to speak often and are expected to both entertain and inspire the audience) , it's tempting to want to learn of and then repeat bigger and better stories.  It would be difficult to continue to find new stories, so I understand how this could happen.  However, this story would not have been difficult to verify and should have been, IMO.  That it continued to be told (changing details each time) is a bit disconcerting too.  As much as leaders are scrutinized these days, they need to be especially careful.  But it's a good reminder for us all to be more cautious when wanting to repeat a story we've heard from someone who heard it from someone else...without making sure it was true.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And what are you doing when looking at DB?  

I don't see him in that light and I think this thread should not turn into one about him.

As far as the topic of the thread goes, I am happy Elder Holland has stepped forward and done this.  Kudos to him for doing the right thing.

I put this story in the same category as many that are told (I used those told at Education Week as an example in the original thread).  I think that as speakers (who have to speak often and are expected to both entertain and inspire the audience) , it's tempting to want to learn of and then repeat bigger and better stories.  It would be difficult to continue to find new stories, so I understand how this could happen.  However, this story would not have been difficult to verify and should have been, IMO.  That it continued to be told (changing details each time) is a bit disconcerting too.  As much as leaders are scrutinized these days, they need to be especially careful.  But it's a good reminder for us all to be more cautious when repeating a story we've heard from someone who heard it from someone else....

The church has the resources to hire fact checkers. Maybe that's what needs to be done? Having fact checkers would have certainly helped here as well as when he misquoted the stake growth statistics a while back.

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The part of the miraculous story that was fabricated was the miracle part

I'm a bit uncomfortable blaming the family for this story because it's as if the default assumes Holland couldn't have made a mistake so therefore it must be the family's fault. Maybe the exaggeration started there, but we can't know for sure. Elder Holland heard the story 2nd hand which means the original source could have been wrong in some elements, the individual that heard, interpreted, and reconveyed the story could have been wrong, or Elder Holland could have been wrong in how he heard, interpreted and retold the story. Or they all could have gotten things wrong. We all get things wrong. We all misremember and mis-tell stories.

But the responsibility ultimately rests on Elder Holland, not the family. The family seems to have done the courageous and ethical thing by bringing the mistakes to Elder Holland's attention even though it may have caused them embarrassment or even shame when people would inevitably blame them for the errors. Elder Holland then did the courageous and ethical thing by admitting the mistake. Whether or not he had much choice about that is in question and doesn't concern me a whole lot, but I'm happy he made a direct statement. I do wish he hadn't called the family into question, though.

This bothered me too.  Why not just state that he's learned there was a misunderstanding or that the story had grown over time with each telling (which appears to be the truth).  I wonder how the family feels about pretty much being thrown under the bus and the inference that one of their family members lied or at the very least embellished.  I feel the retraction could have taken place without doing that.

Edited August 1, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

With all due respect to the Deseret News, I don't care what they say.  I still believe the story is true.

Sarcasm aside, this is actually the most likely position for many members who've heard the story to take.  The facts of a story are irrelevant, people continue to believe stories told even after they find out that the story isn't true.  There are some interesting new studies about desirability bias, this is similar to confirmation bias.  

Quote

Unfortunately, people do not always revise their beliefs in light of new information. On the contrary, they often stubbornly maintain their views. 

Quote

But what if confirmation bias isn’t the only culprit? It recently struck us that confirmation bias is often conflated with “telling people what they want to hear,” which is actually a distinct phenomenon known as desirability bias, or the tendency to credit information you want to believe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/opinion/sunday/youre-not-going-to-change-your-mind.html

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/07/20/yanss-103-desirability-bias/